kumar1
12-27 12:02 PM
I would say, you will be unemployed during that search period.
what if i want to join a company(like Teksystems,GCI,etc,...) on an hourly basis on their W2.What will be my status when an assignment is over and i have to search for another project.
what if i want to join a company(like Teksystems,GCI,etc,...) on an hourly basis on their W2.What will be my status when an assignment is over and i have to search for another project.
lord_labaku
10-05 06:20 PM
Guys,
These are standard trick questions. Its done quite frequently...maybe you guys dont travel frequently....but enforcing officers...like cops, security people, immigration check post officials are all trained to ask obvious, simple straightforward questions and supposed to judge your behavior, body language....not the exact answer....next time....try giving like a really long winding answer and see if they even care.....half way through your answer...they would have already stamped your passport.
These are standard trick questions. Its done quite frequently...maybe you guys dont travel frequently....but enforcing officers...like cops, security people, immigration check post officials are all trained to ask obvious, simple straightforward questions and supposed to judge your behavior, body language....not the exact answer....next time....try giving like a really long winding answer and see if they even care.....half way through your answer...they would have already stamped your passport.
amsgc
06-30 07:26 PM
I like this thread - positive, reasonable, and makes sense.
jsb
10-29 03:33 PM
I checked my current labor certification. it has the following details :
ETA FORM 9089
A) PREVAILING WAGE INFORMATION
SOC/O*NET(OES) CODE
15-1031.00
OCCUPATONAL TITLE
COMPUTER SOFTWARE ENGINEER
B) JOB OPPORTUNITY INFORMATION
JOB TITLE: SOFTWARE ENGINEER(THIS IS CURRENT)
C) IDENTIFY THE JOB TITLE OF THE ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE OCCUPATION:
PROGRAMMER ANALYST OR SYSTEMS ANALYST
D) JOB DUTIES
CREATE TEST PLANS, TEST CASES AND ANALYZE USER NEEDS AND CREATE AND
MODIFY APPLICATION SOFTWARE USING VARIOUS SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES
My question is based on the above can i switch to another field like SAP for example. I am not sure if companies will be ready to give me a offer letter with the above text for a SAP job.
Any ideas friends?
There is no hard and fast rule in this matter. "Same or similar" is very vague. My guess is that if new work field is not drastically different you should be fine. But for AC21 application, as I hear, you need do nothing unless there is an RFE. Guidelines given by USCIS to their field office on AC21, seem to advise them to be quite lenient.
ETA FORM 9089
A) PREVAILING WAGE INFORMATION
SOC/O*NET(OES) CODE
15-1031.00
OCCUPATONAL TITLE
COMPUTER SOFTWARE ENGINEER
B) JOB OPPORTUNITY INFORMATION
JOB TITLE: SOFTWARE ENGINEER(THIS IS CURRENT)
C) IDENTIFY THE JOB TITLE OF THE ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE OCCUPATION:
PROGRAMMER ANALYST OR SYSTEMS ANALYST
D) JOB DUTIES
CREATE TEST PLANS, TEST CASES AND ANALYZE USER NEEDS AND CREATE AND
MODIFY APPLICATION SOFTWARE USING VARIOUS SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES
My question is based on the above can i switch to another field like SAP for example. I am not sure if companies will be ready to give me a offer letter with the above text for a SAP job.
Any ideas friends?
There is no hard and fast rule in this matter. "Same or similar" is very vague. My guess is that if new work field is not drastically different you should be fine. But for AC21 application, as I hear, you need do nothing unless there is an RFE. Guidelines given by USCIS to their field office on AC21, seem to advise them to be quite lenient.
more...
singhsa3
04-30 05:11 PM
All,
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly help me develop a model. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
So far I have the following rational (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Facts
1. Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
2. Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
3. FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
4. Per FLC data, 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47,251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumptions
1. Each labor application uses in 2.2 visas.
2. Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 180,000 BEC labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
3. Total BEC visas requirements 180,000*2.2= 396,000
4. NIW applications are negligible.
5. Retrogressed countries account for 50% of visas used.
Calculations
Scenario 1: Visa processing time is Zero
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(47,251+6000)x2.2=18,306
3. BEC visas remaining as on 10/01/08= 396,000-20,173-18,306= 357,521
Scenario 2: Visa processing time is one year. Note: it affects only the applications certified within the preceding year.
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20,173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(6000)x2.2=122,259
3. BEC visas (And NOT labor) remaining as on 10/01/08 = 396,000-122,259= 273,741.
What it means:
BEC contained labors from both retrogressed and non-retrogressed countries. Thus, in FY’08 and FY’09 visa consumptions will be attributed to BEC mainly. Once this backlog is cleared, the normal consumption (Supply = Demand) should resume. But it will also mean that there will always be 2-3 years wait.
Conclusion:
Suggested Cut-off dates for India as on 10/01/2008: ??? TBD.
Last update:
Time 11.32 AM ET , 05/01/08.
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly help me develop a model. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
So far I have the following rational (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Facts
1. Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
2. Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
3. FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
4. Per FLC data, 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47,251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumptions
1. Each labor application uses in 2.2 visas.
2. Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 180,000 BEC labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
3. Total BEC visas requirements 180,000*2.2= 396,000
4. NIW applications are negligible.
5. Retrogressed countries account for 50% of visas used.
Calculations
Scenario 1: Visa processing time is Zero
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(47,251+6000)x2.2=18,306
3. BEC visas remaining as on 10/01/08= 396,000-20,173-18,306= 357,521
Scenario 2: Visa processing time is one year. Note: it affects only the applications certified within the preceding year.
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20,173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(6000)x2.2=122,259
3. BEC visas (And NOT labor) remaining as on 10/01/08 = 396,000-122,259= 273,741.
What it means:
BEC contained labors from both retrogressed and non-retrogressed countries. Thus, in FY’08 and FY’09 visa consumptions will be attributed to BEC mainly. Once this backlog is cleared, the normal consumption (Supply = Demand) should resume. But it will also mean that there will always be 2-3 years wait.
Conclusion:
Suggested Cut-off dates for India as on 10/01/2008: ??? TBD.
Last update:
Time 11.32 AM ET , 05/01/08.
morchu
04-23 03:04 AM
Focus on your goal. Emotions may not take you there.
If I am in your place, i wont argue with that lawyer. I will try to get full co-operation from that lawyer, and make him file another LC, after proper review from your side. Obviously you need support from employer also.
It is your choice. And yes you can file legal case against law firm. But then what?
Hello All,
My labor for the perm processing has been rejected (after 2 years) due to an incorrect field in the ETA form. This was lawyer's mistake and negligence in paying diligence in filling the form. Can I sue the lawyer? My options would be either to restart the processing or look for another law firm to file my application.
Please let me know if anyone has encountered the same problem? Can I file a legal case against the law firm?
Thank you
Ravi
If I am in your place, i wont argue with that lawyer. I will try to get full co-operation from that lawyer, and make him file another LC, after proper review from your side. Obviously you need support from employer also.
It is your choice. And yes you can file legal case against law firm. But then what?
Hello All,
My labor for the perm processing has been rejected (after 2 years) due to an incorrect field in the ETA form. This was lawyer's mistake and negligence in paying diligence in filling the form. Can I sue the lawyer? My options would be either to restart the processing or look for another law firm to file my application.
Please let me know if anyone has encountered the same problem? Can I file a legal case against the law firm?
Thank you
Ravi
more...
sg72
09-29 12:42 PM
My case is totally different. We applied on July 2nd and my wife got her EAD last week but my EAD not yet approved. Is it normal?
gc_buddy
04-04 05:24 AM
There is a substantial amount of financial adjustments required. Infact that is the reason why it is being delayed.
Just to add, The Ability to Pay must be provided as of the priority date and continue until such time you recieve legal residance. If you are making fianancial adjustments as of today they may not be of much use..Just make sure of this when you or your employer makes financial adjustments..
Just to add, The Ability to Pay must be provided as of the priority date and continue until such time you recieve legal residance. If you are making fianancial adjustments as of today they may not be of much use..Just make sure of this when you or your employer makes financial adjustments..
more...
venky_handsy
09-10 10:31 PM
your employer while applying the h1b , they did not applied for change of status to h1b. they just applied for h1b only. so you did not got the i-94.
so until you out of the country and get it stamped h1b and re-enter you h1b will not be activated.
since you have your f1 valid until december...you can go for stamping before that date or you can also amend h1b for change of status thru your employer also.
hope this helps
so until you out of the country and get it stamped h1b and re-enter you h1b will not be activated.
since you have your f1 valid until december...you can go for stamping before that date or you can also amend h1b for change of status thru your employer also.
hope this helps
diptam
06-08 01:11 AM
rimzhim , Totally agree with ya ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279213,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279213,00.html
more...
loudobbs
08-06 11:23 AM
My lawyer screwed up when he filed mu I140. He filed it under EB3 instead of EB2 even though the labor was approved under EB2. He filed a new EB2 I140 PP on MAy 23 and it is still pending.
:(
I have a EB2 - I140 (PERM) pending at Texas from 06/2006 and another EB3-I140 (RIR) pending from 06/2007. When my lawyer filed the EB2-I140, he filed it with a copy of labor from DOL (not original hard copy). He says he did not know it would cause such a delay. My EB3-I140 however was filed on labor approved from the Dallas BEC. It was filed with the original copy of labor. Are there any people like me, who have endured a long wait because they did not have the original labor ? Please post your experiences here .......
:(
I have a EB2 - I140 (PERM) pending at Texas from 06/2006 and another EB3-I140 (RIR) pending from 06/2007. When my lawyer filed the EB2-I140, he filed it with a copy of labor from DOL (not original hard copy). He says he did not know it would cause such a delay. My EB3-I140 however was filed on labor approved from the Dallas BEC. It was filed with the original copy of labor. Are there any people like me, who have endured a long wait because they did not have the original labor ? Please post your experiences here .......
sabbygirl99
03-28 11:23 AM
My LC is languishing in Philly backlog center. Not sure if I beleive that they will have it completed by Sep 2007. In any case, I am blessed enough to be able to switch to a part time status at work. I am enrolling in a part time graduate program. My question is - will going part time at work hurt me with LC or even later with 140, 485, or maybe even green card interview?? Thanks.
more...
diptam
06-30 05:26 PM
Interestingly lot of folks like me are doing 485 on their own - because its NOT difficult. Its small Project and you have to get the Docs right and complete.
Regd - Lawyers dont really answer RFE - they ask us to give the piece of extra information and henceforth charge 3000-4000... Like if a RFE comes to me because i didn't submit W2 and Tax returns - I'll send that. What do i need a lawyer to send my W2's ?
So far as critical RFE's like Birth Certificate , Employment letter unsatisfactory they will straight away reject the case - No question of RFE an no need of
lawyer answering it.
I feel like lawyers are collectively spreading these rumours because they want peoples like me to feel scared with the overall tense environment so that they get more business !!
I mailed my case today June 30th and it should hit Lincoln, NE July 2nd
Since the Visa bulletion is still showing current i have a right to do that.
Hey can we sue these law firms who have spread the rumors, I could not sleep all night yesterday. Think about those who have not submitted the paperwork to their lawyer yet ....
I saw immigration law (Matthew Oh) & Murthy publizing these rumors. Even Shusterman could have done the same he is one of the top immg attorneys but I feel just to make us already suffering souls file before the holiday these firms has run some water down our drain ....
Regd - Lawyers dont really answer RFE - they ask us to give the piece of extra information and henceforth charge 3000-4000... Like if a RFE comes to me because i didn't submit W2 and Tax returns - I'll send that. What do i need a lawyer to send my W2's ?
So far as critical RFE's like Birth Certificate , Employment letter unsatisfactory they will straight away reject the case - No question of RFE an no need of
lawyer answering it.
I feel like lawyers are collectively spreading these rumours because they want peoples like me to feel scared with the overall tense environment so that they get more business !!
I mailed my case today June 30th and it should hit Lincoln, NE July 2nd
Since the Visa bulletion is still showing current i have a right to do that.
Hey can we sue these law firms who have spread the rumors, I could not sleep all night yesterday. Think about those who have not submitted the paperwork to their lawyer yet ....
I saw immigration law (Matthew Oh) & Murthy publizing these rumors. Even Shusterman could have done the same he is one of the top immg attorneys but I feel just to make us already suffering souls file before the holiday these firms has run some water down our drain ....
aamchimumbai
07-23 12:05 AM
All,
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
more...
roseball
03-29 04:15 PM
How long the process took before filing? How much time for PWD alone?
It took almost 6 months.....But typically it only requires around 3-4 months (considering PWD response in 1-2 weeks)....My PWD was filed in the first week of Jan and it took about 3 weeks to get a response back it seems, though I am not aware of the exact dates as I was not involved in this whole process. I only came to know about it due to my frequent emails to my manager and attorney asking for status..:-)......Mine is a large corporation (400k+ employees) so things move really slow process wise....I felt from start to filing of PERM, it should take about 4 months max...But it really depends on the number of resumes received and the time taken to screen them....If candidates are found who have to be interviewed, it could take a little more time....
It took almost 6 months.....But typically it only requires around 3-4 months (considering PWD response in 1-2 weeks)....My PWD was filed in the first week of Jan and it took about 3 weeks to get a response back it seems, though I am not aware of the exact dates as I was not involved in this whole process. I only came to know about it due to my frequent emails to my manager and attorney asking for status..:-)......Mine is a large corporation (400k+ employees) so things move really slow process wise....I felt from start to filing of PERM, it should take about 4 months max...But it really depends on the number of resumes received and the time taken to screen them....If candidates are found who have to be interviewed, it could take a little more time....
bekugc
12-11 08:00 PM
as for Mohits qn. i agree with pragirs' answer.
during AC21, if new job description is similar to orig LC thing, and if the new cmpany can put that on paper in offer or empl letter, this shud be enuf... a colleague of mine, who was a developer had his LC as a programmer, after 485 apply/180days/Ead etc, he lost his client and my company waited for 3 weeks & laid him off...he used ac21 and joined a small company, who gave him a QA job, but on paper it was put exactly as what orig LC said. in the july flood, he got his GC, no qns asked.
as for difference in salary, i remember in one of the free teleconf calls done by a prominent attorney , he said if u move from one geographic loc to another, then diff in stds of living etc will allow for same job desc to have pretty diff salary ranges. but if u chg in same geography and have significantly diff salary, it may raise eyebrow...but again what significant means is Gray...
during AC21, if new job description is similar to orig LC thing, and if the new cmpany can put that on paper in offer or empl letter, this shud be enuf... a colleague of mine, who was a developer had his LC as a programmer, after 485 apply/180days/Ead etc, he lost his client and my company waited for 3 weeks & laid him off...he used ac21 and joined a small company, who gave him a QA job, but on paper it was put exactly as what orig LC said. in the july flood, he got his GC, no qns asked.
as for difference in salary, i remember in one of the free teleconf calls done by a prominent attorney , he said if u move from one geographic loc to another, then diff in stds of living etc will allow for same job desc to have pretty diff salary ranges. but if u chg in same geography and have significantly diff salary, it may raise eyebrow...but again what significant means is Gray...
more...
sobers
02-09 08:58 AM
Discussion about challenges in America�s immigration policies tends to focus on the millions of illegal immigrants. But the more pressing immigration problem facing the US today, writes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, is the dearth of high-skilled immigrants required to keep the US economy competitive. Due to tighter visa policies and a growth in opportunities elsewhere in the world, foreign students majoring in science and engineering at US universities are no longer staying to work after graduation in the large numbers that they once did. With the poor quality of science and math education at the primary and secondary levels in the US, the country cannot afford to lose any highly-skilled immigrants, particularly in key, technology-related disciplines. Along with across-the-board improvements in education, the US needs to find a way to attract enough new workers so that companies like Intel do not have to set up shop elsewhere.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
simple1
05-12 03:07 PM
Ok, for this Attorney thread, some one is pouring red on me.
GCA
09-15 01:05 PM
hahah, interesting, funny but logical... I guess they just did not think through all this and why would they :mad:
Had they able to think that far, may be many of the issues we face today wouldn't have cropped.
Had they able to think that far, may be many of the issues we face today wouldn't have cropped.
Legal
07-26 12:32 PM
very good idea! We should fight..
This time they can not say they can not say unrelated immigration issue should not be attached to a spending bill.
If this claim is made again by immigration restrictionists, then the "more visas for crab pickers" deal should also go:D
This time they can not say they can not say unrelated immigration issue should not be attached to a spending bill.
If this claim is made again by immigration restrictionists, then the "more visas for crab pickers" deal should also go:D
Hong12
12-14 12:29 AM
Thanks for a quick response. I checked with my lawyer, and he said that this petition letter is the one they sent to the USCIS, which got approved on the H1 Recapture. This petition letter has somebody else�s education, work experience and job duty on it. The application sent to USCIS has the correct name and sponsoring company, which are my name and my sponsoring company name on it. So, the I-797 (Approval Notice) has my name and my sponsoring company on it. The issue is the petition letter is all screwed up. My lawyer does not give me any advices at all. Please advise what I should do for the interview at US Consular due to my petition letter, which contains somebody else�s background on it. Do I have to resubmit again? Will I get rejected? Are there any better options for me? Thank you very much.
